Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dominique

Regulars
  • Posts

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dominique

  1. Also as an aside I'd like to say (while we're on the topic of moderators) that I commend Felipe for appropriately responding to posts (after an initial *growing pains*) and splitting threads. I've found it most helpful to have the threads split up as you have done Felipe.
  2. I'd say yes. It would cut down on the public arguments by immediately taking it behind *closed doors* and it would save time backtracking to explain. Also it's rude to just delete/edit someone without even telling them what they did wrong. It shows a lack of respect and it's so easily avoided with a simple note. [EDIT-to add:] For example I thought this response by you Felipe was totally appropriate and tactful. Perhaps overtly so, but better to err on the side of prudence than negligence.
  3. That's exactly what I was thinking. Good to hear.
  4. (mod note-I tried to find the appropriate place to put this and this is the best I came up with. Move if neccessary-I thought I remembered seeing a more targeted thread but couldn't find just now) This is such a prob-is there no strike out feature mods can use to cross out bad lines while leaving content intact? If not, dissallow edit feature for mods-I see no productive purpose for all this aggravation-*my two cents*.
  5. (first off mods-is it ok for me to pull content like this out of the trash? if not please delete) pi-r8-you wrote To answer your first question-Yes. Objectivism is only and can only be what Ayn Rand laid out. Further interpretation is more along the lines of processing her data, but it's her system. You can't just tweak her ideas and call it Objectivism, basically it's like trademark infringement. Call it pi-r8ism or Kelleyism, but it isn't Objectivism. Peikoff has the respect and proper behavior to be clear in all his works that he is merely *interpreting* HER philosophy. Whether or not the system is true does not void her patent on the system. The great thing about Rand's system is that it doesn't need to be memorized, and you are mixing up following her preferences with following her principles. I don't concern myself with her personal likes and dislikes any more than a passing intrest in someone I admire, but her principles-her philosophy is policy, and that is immutable.
  6. I'm reading it right now and I can see right off it is in the trash b/c you're talking trash. Gratuitous profanity and inane accusations are generally not tolerated here. Try to think (and write) like an adult and you will avoid the garbage can. If I can find anything in your post content wise to respond to I will, I've only just briefly looked. [edit-I see there's only one post so I deleted plurals]
  7. I posted about this on my site. My father reads my site so I needed to clarify, esp after my grandmother's funeral. That was my intention-to define my position as a positive.
  8. I think that's appropriate. If I was you I would PM him also if you haven't already.
  9. Absolutely. I have nothing to add but a strong *second* to that statement right there.
  10. And I too, am speaking up. I agree with everything Diana said, so I won't go too into detail as it seems this is a bit out of proportion in scale at this point, but I am glad Free Capitalist brought this up and started the thread because when I read TomL's comments I thought it was wholly rude and would have said so myself but decided to not get involved and let don handle his own battle if he so chose. Being that there is a thread now though I must voice my opinion. I saw nothing in don's post to make me roll my eyes or cringe, but TomL's post certainly made me not just cringe but recoil.
  11. Why is this even a discussion? This article seems to pretty well answer all questions. Beyond what is said here, is there something else you (pi-r8) don't understand?
  12. I agree and isn't that the way a young person new to Objectivism might first learn application of the principle. I think it's unfair to categorize it as *silly, rationalistic dogmatism* I like that
  13. um ITOE anyone? And without actually using the *Objectivism Epistemology*. Objectivism states that reality allows no contradictions. TOC allows contradictions, it's as simple as that. Objectivism is a closed system as described in ITOE. I really think those of you who think TOC does right by Objectivism should check out Diana Hsieh's site (as she has already offered. One of the first things I found on line about Objectivism was her statement when she cut ties with them.
  14. Luckily I do How about this: pg 59: "The choice to "throw the switch is thus the root choice, on which all others depend. Nor can a primary choice be explained by anything more fundamental. By it's nature, it is a first cause within a conciousness, not an effect produced by antecedent factors. [...] No one can explain the choice to focus by reference to a person's own mental contents, such as his ideas. The choice to activate the conceptual level of awareness must precede any ideas; until a person is concious in a human sense, his mind cannot reach new conclusions or even apply previous ones to a current situation. There can be no intellectual factor which makes a man decide to become aware or even partly explains such a decision: to grasp such a factor, he must already be aware." also: pg 58 "Focus is not the same as thinking"
  15. I liked it at first but then it got so out there with the mutants (?) and everything that I thought it became hokey. But I guess I was dissappointed when they cancelled it too
  16. pg 68 of OPAR says "Since one cannot ask for the cause of man's choice to focus, does it follow that, on this level, there is a conflict between freedom and casuality?[...] (pg 69) The content of one's choice could always have gone the other way [...] But the action itself , the fact of choosing as such, in one way or another, is unavoidable. Since man is an entity of a certain kind [...] he must act in a certain way. He must continually choose between focus and nonfocus. [...] This is not a violation of the law of casuality but an instance of it." (pg 71) "Volition accordingly is not an independant philosophic principle, but a corollary of the axiom of consciousness" so to answer your question Nxixcxk, "But if one chooses not to focus, then they must be focusing, since to choose presupposes focus." I would say that to not choose, is still a choice. To focus is volitional and so presupposes conciousness, but it is a choice that is made continuously by the nature of conciousness. Conciousness' identity is volition, so it has to choose, but it does not have to focus. Did that help at all? I'm just starting in on this stuff myself.
  17. In my copy of The Art of Nonfiction it says: "I (Ayn Rand) propagandize for Objectivism constantly, in various degrees. But I bring it in, not by proving it, but by tying a given subject to it's wider implications. That is because I am a theoretician-and it is something you should not yet emulate. "
  18. Fortunately Sherlock has been banned. Of course I'm sure there's someone around here willing to step in and answer as she would have. I just wanted to let you know though since she won't be able to answer herself.
  19. LoL yeah, she's awesome. I watched that insipid show *Dark Angel* for a whole season just because of her.
  20. By the way Jen I know how you feel, I was never taught either, and would most often go au naturale, but I'm in my mid twenties too and ought to *grow up some time*. I prefer a good tan really though I did have some female roommates in the past who took a particluar intrest in *dressing me up* It taught me enough to get by. When I was bartending it was more of a neccessity, but in that I stick with the classics same as I do in clothes. black (that's eyes not lips) and earth tones Works for me
  21. I recently started using DHC products and I think they are marvelous It's all Olive Oil based, very light, natural, and perfect for my sensitive skin LoL, I feel like a commercial here
  22. Thank you Burgess for concretizing. I think this is the heart of the issue now that everyone is looking for objectivity in the media. To me, objectivity in the media means recognizing each as Burgess listed as such, and not calling opinions facts, or beliefs facts, or vice versa. This is part of the *existence exists* (and identity) axiom I mentioned earlier that I'm just digesting. Most people haven't (nearly digested it).
×
×
  • Create New...